The Florida House, in new documents filed Thursday in the state Supreme Court, continued to insist that Gov. Charlie Crist had ''seized or encroached upon'' legislative powers when he signed a gambling deal with the Seminole Tribe last month.

''The governor is not Florida's sovereign, and he cannot unilaterally speak for the state,'' the documents said, adding that the state's Constitution does not authorize such broad powers for the governor.

In the same documents, the House also pushed the court to rule on the case before a Dec. 29 deadline for federal approval of the gambling agreement. Oral arguments are set for Dec. 12.

House lawyers were responding to Crist's assertions in earlier court documents that he had the authority to sign an agreement with the tribe that would give them Las Vegas-style slots and card games such as blackjack at their seven Florida casinos.

House Speaker Marco Rubio opposes the agreement, called a compact, because he and other House leaders believe Crist usurped the powers of the Legislature when he signed the agreement with the Seminoles in November. Under the pact, the tribe would pay the state at least $100 million a year.

Rubio filed suit Nov. 19, asking the high court to strike down the agreement. Gulfstream Park in Hallandale Beach also joined the suit on Rubio's side. The horse track, like two other parimutuels in Broward County, has casinos with Las Vegas-style slot machines that would be in competition with the Seminole Hard Rock near Hollywood.

The governor has argued that if he did not forge an agreement with the tribe, the federal government would have bypassed state approval and allowed the Seminoles to add new games -- without sharing any of the revenue.

Legislative foes of the deal say Florida law prohibits the kind of games Crist authorized in the deal, another reason they say the deal should be nullified.

The U.S. Interior Department, which approves Indian gambling compacts, has until Dec. 29 to rule on the Florida agreement. The House urged the Florida Supreme Court to rule before that date because no new gaming has begun yet.

''At this point, the question may be answered and the compact addressed without disturbing or harming the interests of other parties,'' the document said.